Are 6 Michigan ballot proposals confusing to you? Here are quick summaries to help you

An organizer sifts through some off the 218,297 collected in an effort to repeal Michigan's controversial emergency manager law in Detroit on February 28, 2012.Jonathan Oosting | MLive.com

In less than 24 hours, Michigan voters will begin weighing in on six ballot proposals that seek to rewrite sections of the state constitution and repeal a powerful but controversial law.

National pundits are watching closely to see whether organized labor, which invested in fights over Proposals 1 and 2, still has muscle to flex.

State observers are watching to see whether the voting public will endorse key components of Gov. Rick Snyder's early-term agenda, as questioned by Proposals 1 and 6.

Voters, meanwhile, are just trying to make sense of a lengthy and complicated ballot. Here's a look at what's at stake with each ballot proposal.

Proposal 1: Emergency manager referendum

What it is: Asks voters whether they want to retain Public Act 4 of 2011, the state's so-called emergency manager law that provides a state appointee with broad powers to intervene in financially struggling municipalities and schools.

A "yes" vote: Would reinstate the law, which was temporarily suspended in advance of tomorrow's election. Snyder and other supporters say the law improves upon a previous version by allowing for earlier intervention and provides emergency managers with necessary tools to quickly resolve crises.

A "no" vote: Would repeal PA 4. Attorney General Bill Schuette has opined that Public Act 72 of 1990 would be reinstated, but a lawsuit filed by a group of local officials challenges that assertion. Critics call PA 4 a "draconian" law that goes too far by usurping local control and allowing a state appointee to break union contracts.

Proposal 2: Enshrine collective bargaining

What it is: The proposal would enshrine collective bargaining into the state constitution, invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions, and override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

A "yes" vote: Would amend the state constitution in the ways described above. Supporters say the proposal would protect collective bargaining rights, giving workers a say in their working conditions and leveling the playing field after legislation passed in the last two years limited bargaining topics.

A "no" vote: Would shoot down the proposal, which opponents say is an attempt to undue the 2010 elections, overturning about 170 laws that include reforms saving schools money and improving teacher quality. They also say the move is a pre-emptive strike against potential right-to-work legislation in Michigan.

Proposal 3: Renewable energy mandate

What it is: Asks voters to amend the constitution to require Michigan utilities to derive at least 25 percent of their annual electric retail sales from clean renewable sources, including wind, solar, biomass and hydropower, by 2025. It also calls for providers to limit rate increases to 1 percent per year to meet the standard.

A "yes" vote: Would amend the state constitution to increase the state's renewable energy standard. Supporters say it would result in $10 billion in investments, tens of thousands of new jobs, and a cleaner, healthier environment. They say the cost of renewables is going down compared to coal and should end up saving Michigan money in the long run.

A "no" vote: Would keep the state's 10 percent by 2015 standard in place. Opponents say the 25 by 25 mandate would cost $12 billion and are skeptical of the 1 percent cap and how that would work. They argue that increased energy costs will actually lead to a net decrease in jobs. They also say the amendment is vague and doesn’t belong in the state constitution.

Proposal 4: Home health care

What it is: The ballot proposal would amend the state constitution to create a council to maintain a registry of home healthcare workers. The council would be able to negotiate with a union representing the workers.

A "yes" vote: Would amend the state constitution as described above. Supporters say the amendment would help the elderly and disabled by helping connect them with workers trained to meet special needs. They say the council would provide background checks that would make people safer.

A "no" vote: Would shoot down the proposal, which opponents call an attempt by a government workers union to classify people who are paid through a government program – in this case Medicaid – as public employees, forcing them to join a union or pay union fees. The say the registry already exists, and background checks could be provided without amending the constitution.

Proposal 5: Two-thirds majority for state taxes

What it is: Two-thirds of state lawmakers in both the House and Senate would have to vote in favor of a new state tax, expanding the base of taxation or increasing a tax rate under the proposed constitutional amendment. Voters themselves also could approve a state tax increase.

A "yes" vote: Would amend the state constitution by making it tougher to raise state taxes or alter the mix of taxes that support state services. Supporters say it would force government to focus more on how it spends money rather than how it raises money. Supporters say it would make Michigan’s tax system more attractive to job providers, and keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets. Supporters say it would require true consensus for tax increases.

A "no" vote: Would keep Michigan’s simple majority rules in place. Opponents of changing that system say it would create more gridlock in the Legislature, which already has trouble finding consensus on tax issues. Opponents say a relatively small minority of lawmakers could block policies favored by others. Opponents say requiring a "supermajority" would make it extremely difficult to adjust to changing needs and threaten funding for schools, social services and other taxpayer-funded programs.

Proposal 6: International bridge vote

What it is: Seeks to amend the state constitution by requiring a public vote for any international bridge or tunnel project, including the New International Trade Crossing planned to connect Detroit and Windsor.

A "yes" vote: May delay construction of NITC, but Snyder does not believe the constitutional amendment would jeopardize the interlocal agreement that the state signed with Canada. It'll likely be sorted out in court. A group funded by Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Moroun argues that "the people should decide" whether to proceed with a project of such magnitude.

A "no" vote: Would allow Michigan to proceed with the NITC project alongside Canada, which has pledged to cover the state's upfront costs and collect repayment through future toll revenues. Gov. Snyder and scores of state business leaders say the new bridge is needed to facilitate trade at one of the nation's busiest border crossings.